- From: Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 10:01:19 -0400
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>, <www-tag@w3.org>
> >That is a different issue (I think). It's one thing to say that the >_semantics_ of XLink are unacceptable for XHTML but another that "I just >don't like the way it looks" - It's not about looks, it's about usability from the document authoring perspective. RDF, in my opinion, is even worse that XLink in terms of verbosity, and requiring a computer scientist's understanding of it's function to get a simple link put in your document. That's, for all pratical purposes, never going to be an acceptable solution. >- surely not from the very WG that has foisted >XHTML Modularization DTDs on us! :-) Seriously though, consider that XHTML >Modularization DTDs are butt uggly for the very reason that such contortions >are _required_ in order to get around the problems that DTDs have with XML >Namespaces. Exactly. But let's not forget that XHTML Modularization DTDs have a far different audience that the mechanisms for linking between web pages. Ann ----- Ann Navarro, WebGeek, Inc. http://www.webgeek.com say what? http://www.snorf.net/blog
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2002 10:21:42 UTC